Cost-effectiveness of a 'score and scope' strategy for the management of dyspepsia.

OBJECTIVE It is important to identify the best initial work-up in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia because of its epidemiological and economical relevance. The objective of the study was to assess systematically the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of invasive and non-invasive strategies for the management of dyspepsia. METHODS A decision analysis was performed to compare prompt endoscopy, score and scope, test and scope, test and treat, and empirical antisecretory treatment. Published and local data on the prevalence of different diagnoses, rates of Helicobacter pylori infection, accuracy values of diagnostic tests, and effectiveness of drug treatments were used. The perspective of analysis was that of the public healthcare payer, and only direct costs were included, with a one-year post-therapy time horizon. The main outcome measure was cost per asymptomatic patient, valued in 2003 Euros. RESULTS Endoscopy was found to be the most effective strategy for the management of dyspepsia (38.4% asymptomatic patients), followed by test and scope (35.5%), test and treat (35.3%), score and scope (34.7%), and empirical treatment (28.5%). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that score and scope was the most cost-effective alternative (483.17 Euros per asymptomatic patient), followed by prompt endoscopy (1396.85 Euros). Sensitivity analyses showed variations when varying the values of prevalence of duodenal ulcer, and the values of healing of functional dyspepsia with antisecretory and eradication drugs. There were no changes when varying the prevalence of H. pylori in dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS We would recommend stratifying patients by a score system, referring first to endoscopy those patients at higher risk of organic dyspepsia.